Julia A. Haller

Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Patients with Macular Edema Due to Retinal Vein Occlusion

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant; OZURDEX, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) compared with sham in eyes with vision loss due to macular edema (ME) associated with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). DESIGN Two identical, multicenter, masked, randomized, 6-month, sham-controlled clinical trials (each of which included patients with BRVO and patients with CRVO). PARTICIPANTS A total of 1267 patients with vision loss due to ME associated with BRVO or CRVO. INTERVENTION A single treatment with DEX implant 0.7 mg (n = 427), DEX implant 0.35 mg (n = 414), or sham (n = 426). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure for the pooled data from the 2 studies was time to achieve a > or =15-letter improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Secondary end points included BCVA, central retinal thickness, and safety. RESULTS After a single administration, the time to achieve a > or =15-letter improvement in BCVA was significantly less in both DEX implant groups compared with sham (P<0.001). The percentage of eyes with a > or =15-letter improvement in BCVA was significantly higher in both DEX implant groups compared with sham at days 30 to 90 (P<0.001). The percentage of eyes with a > or =15-letter loss in BCVA was significantly lower in the DEX implant 0.7-mg group compared with sham at all follow-up visits (P< or =0.036). Improvement in mean BCVA was greater in both DEX implant groups compared with sham at all follow-up visits (P< or =0.006). Improvements in BCVA with DEX implant were seen in patients with BRVO and patients with CRVO, although the patterns of response differed. The percentage of DEX implant-treated eyes with intraocular pressure (IOP) of > or =25 mmHg peaked at 16% at day 60 (both doses) and was not different from sham by day 180. There was no significant between-group difference in the occurrence of cataract or cataract surgery. CONCLUSIONS Dexamethasone intravitreal implant can both reduce the risk of vision loss and improve the speed and incidence of visual improvement in eyes with ME secondary to BRVO or CRVO and may be a useful therapeutic option for eyes with these conditions.

Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with macular edema related to branch or central retinal vein occlusion twelve-month study results

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 or 2 treatments with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) over 12 months in eyes with macular edema owing to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO or CRVO). DESIGN Two identical, multicenter, prospective studies included a randomized, 6-month, double-masked, sham-controlled phase followed by a 6-month open-label extension. PARTICIPANTS We included 1256 patients with vision loss owing to macular edema associated with BRVO or CRVO. METHODS At baseline, patients received DEX implant 0.7 mg (n = 421), DEX implant 0.35 mg (n = 412), or sham (n = 423) in the study eye. At day 180, patients could receive DEX implant 0.7 mg if best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was <84 letters or retinal thickness was >250 μm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome for the open-label extension was safety; BCVA was also evaluated. RESULTS At day 180, 997 patients received open-label DEX implant. Except for cataract, the incidence of ocular adverse events was similar in patients who received their first or second DEX implant. Over 12 months, cataract progression occurred in 90 of 302 phakic eyes (29.8%) that received 2 DEX implant 0.7 mg injections versus 5 of 88 sham-treated phakic eyes (5.7%); cataract surgery was performed in 4 of 302 (1.3%) and 1 of 88 (1.1%) eyes, respectively. In the group receiving two 0.7-mg DEX implants (n = 341), a ≥ 10-mmHg intraocular pressure (IOP) increase from baseline was observed in (12.6% after the first treatment, and 15.4% after the second). The IOP increases were usually transient and controlled with medication or observation; an additional 10.3% of patients initiated IOP-lowering medications after the second treatment. A ≥ 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline was achieved by 30% and 32% of patients 60 days after the first and second DEX implant, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with macular edema owing to BRVO or CRVO, single and repeated treatment with DEX implant had a favorable safety profile over 12 months. In patients who qualified for and received 2 DEX implant injections, the efficacy and safety of the 2 implants were similar with the exception of cataract progression. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S) Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Enzymatic Vitreolysis with Ocriplasmin for Vitreomacular Traction and Macular Holes

BACKGROUND Vitreomacular adhesion can lead to pathologic traction and macular hole. The standard treatment for severe, symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion is vitrectomy. Ocriplasmin is a recombinant protease with activity against fibronectin and laminin, components of the vitreoretinal interface. METHODS We conducted two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trials to compare a single intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin (125 μg) with a placebo injection in patients with symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion. The primary end point was resolution of vitreomacular adhesion at day 28. Secondary end points were total posterior vitreous detachment and nonsurgical closure of a macular hole at 28 days, avoidance of vitrectomy, and change in best-corrected visual acuity. RESULTS Overall, 652 eyes were treated: 464 with ocriplasmin and 188 with placebo. Vitreomacular adhesion resolved in 26.5% of ocriplasmin-injected eyes and in 10.1% of placebo-injected eyes (P<0.001). Total posterior vitreous detachment was more prevalent among the eyes treated with ocriplasmin than among those injected with placebo (13.4% vs. 3.7%, P<0.001). Nonsurgical closure of macular holes was achieved in 40.6% of ocriplasmin-injected eyes, as compared with 10.6% of placebo-injected eyes (P<0.001). The best-corrected visual acuity was more likely to improve by a gain of at least three lines on the eye chart with ocriplasmin than with placebo. Ocular adverse events (e.g., vitreous floaters, photopsia, or injection-related eye pain--all self-reported--or conjunctival hemorrhage) occurred in 68.4% of ocriplasmin-injected eyes and in 53.5% of placebo-injected eyes (P<0.001), and the incidence of serious ocular adverse events was similar in the two groups (P=0.26). CONCLUSIONS Intravitreal injection of the vitreolytic agent ocriplasmin resolved vitreomacular traction and closed macular holes in significantly more patients than did injection of placebo and was associated with a higher incidence of ocular adverse events, which were mainly transient. (Funded by ThromboGenics; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00781859 and NCT00798317.).

Preclinical and phase 1A clinical evaluation of an anti-VEGF pegylated aptamer (EYE001) for the treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration

Background Recent studies have suggested that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is an important stimulus for the growth of new blood vessels in the eye. Anti-VEGF therapy is thus a potential treatment for exudative macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. Methods Previously described animal models of vascular leakage and ocular neovascularization, including the Miles assay, the rat corneal angiogenesis model, and the mouse retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) model, were used to study this drug. After these studies, a phase IA single ascending dose study of intravitreal injections of the drug was performed in 15 patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Results The Miles assay model showed almost complete attenuation of VEGF-mediated vascular leakage following addition of EYE001, and the corneal angiogenesis model also showed a significant reduction in neovascularization with EYE001. The ROP model showed inhibition of 80% of the retinal neovascularization compared with controls (P = 0.0001). The phase IA safety study of patients with exudative AMD showed no significant safety issues related to the drug. Ophthalmic evaluation revealed that 80% of patients showed stable or improved vision 3 months after treatment and that 27% of eyes demonstrated a three-line or greater improvement in vision on the Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart at this time. Conclusion Anti-VEGF therapy is a promising new avenue for the treatment of neovascular diseases of the eye, including exudative macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. Preclinical data from studies with EYE001 support clinical evaluation of its efficacy in such diseases. This report is the first to describe administration of anti-VEGF therapy in humans for exudative macular degeneration and shows the safety of such therapy for single injections. Further clinical studies are necessary to determine the safety of multiple intravitreal injections of EYE001 and larger studies are needed to prove the efficacy of this novel, potentially therapeutic agent for neovascular AMD.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration: Phase II study results

PURPOSE There is evidence to suggest that anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy may be useful in treating ocular neovascularization. A phase IA single intravitreal injection study of anti-VEGF therapy for patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) revealed a good safety profile. We performed a phase II multiple injection study of anti-VEGF therapy with and without photodynamic therapy for patients with subfoveal CNV secondary to AMD to determine the safety profile of multiple injection therapy. DESIGN A phase II multiple-dose safety study. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS Twenty-one patients were treated with intravitreal injection with and without photodynamic therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Clinical evidence of toxicity and complications. RESULTS No drug-related serious adverse events were revealed. Ophthalmic evaluation revealed that 87.5% of patients who received the anti-VEGF aptamer alone showed stabilized or improved vision 3 months after treatment and that 25% of eyes demonstrated a 3 line or greater improvement in vision on the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart during this period. A 60% 3 line gain at 3 months was noted in patients who received both the anti-VEGF aptamer and photodynamic therapy. CONCLUSIONS Anti-VEGF therapy is a promising treatment for various forms of ocular neovascularization, including AMD. Multiple intravitreal injections of the anti-VEGF aptamer were well tolerated in this phase II study. Further clinical trials are necessary to demonstrate the efficacy and long-term safety of anti-VEGF therapy for AMD.

Ranibizumab for macular edema due to retinal vein occlusions: implication of VEGF as a critical stimulator.

Macular edema is a major cause of vision loss in patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). It is not clear how much of the edema is due to hydrodynamic changes from the obstruction and how much is due to chemical mediators. Patients with macular edema due to CRVO (n = 20) or BRVO (n = 20) were randomized to receive three monthly injections of 0.3 or 0.5 mg of ranibizumab. At the primary endpoint, month 3, the median improvement in letters read at 4 m was 17 in the 0.3-mg group and 14 in the 0.5-mg group for CRVO, and 10 and 18, respectively for the BRVO group. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed that compared to injections of 0.3 mg, injections of 0.5 mg of ranibizumab tended to cause more rapid reductions of central retinal thickening that lasted longer between injections, but in 3 months, excess central retinal thickening which is a quantitative assessment of the macular edema, was reduced by approximately 90% in all four treatment groups. There was no correlation between the amount of improvement and duration of disease or patient age at baseline, but there was some correlation between the aqueous vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) level at baseline and amount of improvement. These data indicate that excess production of VEGF in the retinas of patients with CRVO or BRVO is a major contributor to macular edema and suggest that additional studies investigating the efficacy of intraocular injections of ranibizumab are needed.

Intravitreal aflibercept injection for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: 1-year results from the phase 3 COPERNICUS study.

PURPOSE To evaluate intravitreal aflibercept injections (IAI; also called VEGF Trap-Eye) for patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). DESIGN Randomized controlled trial. METHODS This multicenter study randomized 189 patients (1 eye/patient) with macular edema secondary to CRVO to receive 6 monthly injections of either 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept (IAI 2Q4) (n = 115) or sham (n = 74). From week 24 to week 52, all patients received 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept as needed (IAI 2Q4 + PRN and sham + IAI PRN) according to retreatment criteria. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who gained ≥15 ETDRS letters from baseline at week 24. Additional endpoints included visual, anatomic, and quality-of-life NEI VFQ-25 outcomes at weeks 24 and 52. RESULTS At week 24, 56.1% of IAI 2Q4 patients gained ≥15 letters from baseline compared with 12.3% of sham patients (P < .001). At week 52, 55.3% of IAI 2Q4 + PRN patients gained ≥15 letters compared with 30.1% of sham + IAI PRN patients (P < .001). At week 52, IAI 2Q4 + PRN patients gained a mean of 16.2 letters of vision vs 3.8 letters for sham + IAI PRN (P < .001). The most common adverse events for both groups were conjunctival hemorrhage, eye pain, reduced visual acuity, and increased intraocular pressure. CONCLUSIONS Monthly injections of 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept for patients with macular edema secondary to CRVO resulted in a statistically significant improvement in visual acuity at week 24, which was largely maintained through week 52 with intravitreal aflibercept PRN dosing. Intravitreal aflibercept injection was generally well tolerated.

Risk factors for hemiretinal vein occlusion : Comparison with risk factors for central and branch retinal vein occlusion the eye disease case-control study

OBJECTIVE Possible risk factors for hemiretinal vein occlusion were identified and compared with risk factor profiles for central and branch retinal vein occlusion. DESIGN The design was a multicenter case-control study. METHODS The authors identified 79 patients with hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO), 258 patients with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), 270 patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), and 1142 control subjects at 5 clinical centers. Risk factor data were obtained through interviews, clinical examinations, and laboratory analyses of blood specimens. RESULTS Systemic hypertension and history of diabetes mellitus were associated with increased risk of HRVO. Risk of CRVO increased with history of diabetes, systemic hypertension, and higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate (females only); risk of CRVO decreased with increasing amounts of physical activity and increasing amounts of alcohol consumption. Systemic hypertension, higher body mass index, and higher alpha2-globulin levels were associated with increased risk of BRVO, whereas higher high-density lipoprotein levels and increasing levels of alcohol consumption were associated with decreased risk of BRVO. Glaucoma history was associated with all three types of retinal vein occlusion. CONCLUSION Patients presenting with retinal vein occlusion should be evaluated for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and glaucoma.

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Trap-Eye for Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: Six-Month Results of the Phase 3 COPERNICUS Study

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) Trap-Eye in eyes with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). DESIGN Multicenter, randomized, prospective, controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS One hundred eighty-nine eyes with macular edema secondary to CRVO. METHODS Eyes were randomized 3:2 to receive VEGF Trap-Eye 2 mg or sham injection monthly for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The proportion of eyes with a ≥15-letter gain or more in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at week 24 (primary efficacy end point), mean changes in BCVA and central retinal thickness (CRT), and proportion of eyes progressing to neovascularization of the anterior segment, optic disc, or elsewhere in the retina. RESULTS At week 24, 56.1% of VEGF Trap-Eye treated eyes gained 15 letters or more from baseline versus 12.3% of sham-treated eyes (P<0.001). The VEGF Trap-Eye treated eyes gained a mean of 17.3 letters versus sham-treated eyes, which lost 4.0 letters (P<0.001). Central retinal thickness decreased by 457.2 μm in eyes treated with VEGF Trap-Eye versus 144.8 μm in sham-treated eyes (P<0.001), and progression to any neovascularization occurred in 0 and 5 (6.8%) of eyes treated with VEGF Trap-Eye and sham-treated eyes, respectively (P = 0.006). Conjunctival hemorrhage, reduced visual acuity, and eye pain were the most common adverse events (AEs). Serious ocular AEs were reported by 3.5% of VEGF Trap-Eye patients and 13.5% of sham patients. Incidences of nonocular serious AEs generally were well balanced between both groups. CONCLUSIONS At 24 weeks, monthly intravitreal injection of VEGF Trap-Eye 2 mg in eyes with macular edema resulting from CRVO improved visual acuity and CRT, eliminated progression resulting from neovascularization, and was associated with a low rate of ocular AEs related to treatment.

Choroidal Neovascularization after Laser Photocoagulation for Diabetic Macular Edema

Choroidal neovascular membranes (CNVMs) developed in eight patients after photocoagulation for clinically significant diabetic macular edema (DME). The CNVMs developed in areas where Bruchs membrane was ruptured and were diagnosed 2 weeks to 5 months after treatment. Only six patients had symptoms. The CNVMs were treated in four patients; final visual acuity was poor in all eight patients. This serious complication that follows laser treatment for DME may be related to the use of repeated small-size, short-duration laser or intense laser burns, or both.